Basic Income Guarantee (BIG)

[shirgall]

There is already a BIG in the US, it's called foodstamps. When you work at Walmart or McDonalds and you don't make enough money you are eligible for foodstamps and other programs. Eliminating all subsidies for workers and putting them into one income would reduce overhead and create an incentive for companies to create better paying jobs above the BIG (to play government's advocate for a second). Mc Jobs are only possible because of state intervention. 

 

And with 14% of the population on food stamps, it's on its way to becoming universal!

 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/food-stamp-statistics/

[Koroviev]

The people in the voluntary community agreed to the rules of the community, in a written contract.

 

You could ask why they would agree to such a contract in the first place, and I would guess: "Because they prefer a simplified and orderly system of charity to underpin the more complex, less orderly system of charity".

 1. it's highly unlikely that someone in a voluntary society sign themselves up for an involuntary situation.

 2. in a free society you wouldn't be forced to auction your property. yes if you signed a contract there would be consequences, although I can't say I can imagine I'd sign a contract saying I would sell my house or face consequences that would remove me from my house...., but that is not force and in that situation you are not "required" to auction your land you are choosing to auction your land.

 3. if someone did sign that contract well, I can't feel sorry for them they either didn't realize the consequences of their decisions (unlikely) or they didn't realize they needed a second opinion, and this is a great business opportunity for someone who wants to review contracts for people before they sign awful contracts.

[Des]

There is already a BIG in the US, it's called foodstamps. When you work at Walmart or McDonalds and you don't make enough money you are eligible for foodstamps and other programs. Eliminating all subsidies for workers and putting them into one income would reduce overhead and create an incentive for companies to create better paying jobs above the BIG (to play government's advocate for a second). Mc Jobs are only possible because of state intervention. 

I guess some communities without government, will adopt a basic redistribution system that gives each adult some income. It would help make decisions on additional charity start from the question: "Okay, why do you in your special case need more than the basic charity we all get?".

 

To clarify, though, the BIG idea is the idea that we also give BIG to Donald Trump and Bill Gates (so they get a small [to them] monthly income - but they make a big annual/monthly contribution). Many people with high "net worth" {yuk, takes a shower after using the phrase}, make charitable donations and might voluntarily agree to a redistribution scheme which has low overheads.

[Des]

 1. it's highly unlikely that someone in a voluntary society sign themselves up for an involuntary situation.

 2. in a free society you wouldn't be forced to auction your property. yes if you signed a contract there would be consequences, although I can't say I can imagine I'd sign a contract saying I would sell my house or face consequences that would remove me from my house...., but that is not force and in that situation you are not "required" to auction your land you are choosing to auction your land.

 3. if someone did sign that contract well, I can't feel sorry for them they either didn't realize the consequences of their decisions (unlikely) or they didn't realize they needed a second opinion, and this is a great business opportunity for someone who wants to review contracts for people before they sign awful contracts.

I expect some people who claim to be communists, will in fact agree to live in communes where you don't even get to own non-personal items (e.g. you own personal items like toothbrushes, but not homes or cars).  Keeping 90% of what you have at the end of each year is a far less communal way of living, and I expect some people to like that as a compromise really far from full communist.

Why it would make sense that all assets go on auction, is that this is the valid way to determine value.

Of course, this specific contractual system would influence value: assets which produce 20% annual return (in income or in cost-saving like saving rental), would likely appreciate, whereas assets with low return would probably drop in price until the price reaches the level that yields a return of 20% or more.

If you benefit by 20% return on an asset, and then you give away 10% of assets, then even if the full 20% return went into assets, you are still 8% up on the year before. If you consumed the return on one of your assets - well - you didn't agree to some type of levy on consumption, only on the asset which remains.

There is some benefit to this system: if any asset in the community is at any risk - you have a little something to lose if it the asset loses value.

A community using this system might get innovation advantage over other communities, because there is a safety net guaranteed, so a member can bet the farm on his innovation, and amongst all the losing bets, a few winning bets shared among everyone, could make a rich community.

There may be a percentage level for this system, that optimises risk-taking at the sweet spot, and this might push many other communities to adopt it as the winning compromise between sharing everything and sharing nothing.

[Koroviev]

I expect some people who claim to be communists, will in fact agree to live in communes where you don't even get to own non-personal items (e.g. you own personal items like toothbrushes, but not homes or cars).  Keeping 90% of what you have at the end of each year is a far less communal way of living, and I expect some people to like that as a compromise really far from full communist.

Why it would make sense that all assets go on auction, is that this is the valid way to determine value.

Of course, this specific contractual system would influence value: assets which produce 20% annual return (in income or in cost-saving like saving rental), would likely appreciate, whereas assets with low return would probably drop in price until the price reaches the level that yields a return of 20% or more.

If you benefit by 20% return on an asset, and then you give away 10% of assets, then even if the full 20% return went into assets, you are still 8% up on the year before. If you consumed the return on one of your assets - well - you didn't agree to some type of levy on consumption, only on the asset which remains.

There is some benefit to this system: if any asset in the community is at any risk - you have a little something to lose if it the asset loses value.

A community using this system might get innovation advantage over other communities, because there is a safety net guaranteed, so a member can bet the farm on his innovation, and amongst all the losing bets, a few winning bets shared among everyone, could make a rich community.

There may be a percentage level for this system, that optimises risk-taking at the sweet spot, and this might push many other communities to adopt it as the winning compromise between sharing everything and sharing nothing.

 

What? did you just come up with a community where everyone "auctions" off all of their assets every year hoping to get 20% ROA? that doesn't even make sense. Someone is going to work for 5 years to save up enough money to buy a car then the next year auction it off hopefully getting 20% ROA? what if they have to take out a loan does the loan go with the car or do they have to hope they eventually make enough to pay it off? what if they just bought the only Ferrari in the community, wait that wouldn't happen because everyone would be forced to by the worst items since they'll be forced to sell it anyway so they want to spend as little money on it as possible. 

 

Lastly, if they want to join this community then they are not being forced to participate (i.e. they live in a free society) if they are forced to join the community then they are no longer living in a free society. if they are not forced to join but are forced to participate then they are again not living in a free society. They may lose the "benefits" of being it that ridiculously backwards and unsustainable "community" but that is not force. As soon as force comes into play it is no longer a free society. Thus being forced to do something and living in a free society are still mutually exclusive.

[Worlok]

State Welfare is bad. Period. However, less bad is better than more bad.

 

BIG, cuts out massive spending on government workers and costs for the hundreds of welfare programs and departments. The system is superior to the one we have now.

 

Because of (that's how I'm starting this sentence) all of the people receiving social welfare not being at all willing to give up their free stuff, we have to cut welfare, but use fancy words to confuse idiots into not knowing that it's happening.

 

The first thing we do is instate BIG, but make sure it costs not $1 more than our current system. It either needs to be flat across the board "everyone gets the same check," or having it on a sliding scale where the check shrinks slower than income, so that it's always better to get a better paying job than being government dependant (what we have now.)

 

Second, we never, ever raise the BIG, so inflation basically makes it irrelevant and then we get rid of it when your $20,000 check is equal to $20 adjusted for inflation.

[Max Hartford]

If this could actually replace all the other welfare state measures, it would be very positive. I wrote about this on my blog:

 

I would call my system the ‘share of spoils’ system. The system has two components: the input, which I would call ‘the loot’, and the output, which I would call ‘the spoils’. Every citizen in the country with an income is to be looted by the government, while every citizen, including children, whether they have an income or not, is to share in the spoils. The looting is to be done by taking a fixed proportion of everyone’s annual income, let’s say 10% for now. But when distributing the spoils, each citizen is to receive the exact same monetary amount as one another, determined by dividing the amount of money loot by the number of citizens. For example, if the annual 10% income levy resulted in $150 billion of loot, and there were 30 million citizens in the country, than each citizen would receive $5000 for that year as their share of the spoils.

 

One of the main merits of this system is its simplicity. Relatively little bureaucracy is needed to make it work. The flat proportional looting rate keeps assessment relatively simple, the only thing that must be determined is the person’s income for that year, no messing around with income brackets or credits. For spoils distribution, no ‘needs test’ is necessary, and the same, standardized payment can just be sent to everyone in the country.

 

Besides simplicity, the flatness and universality of the looting rate and the spoils distribution amount also reduces, as much as possible, the negative effect on production incentives that any system of redistribution will necessarily have. With my system, there is no special disincentive to move up from one set income bracket to the next, as there is in most countries’ current ‘needs based welfare’ and ‘progressive taxation’ systems. The general production disincentive will of course remain, as the higher people’s income, the more monetary units will be looted from them. But as long as the flat proportional looting rate is not set too high, this shouldn’t be a major problem.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

 Every citizen in the country with an income is to be looted by the government, while every citizen, including children, whether they have an income or not, is to share in the spoils.

Nope.

 

Since some people will be at a net deficit they will not be "sharing in the spoils." Please don't make this seem like some fun party where everyone is included, when in fact some people need to lose for others to win. If I crash my neighbor's house when they're not home to have a party, they're not "sharing in on the spoils." It is dishonest or careless to claim everyone is included in the spoils when they're not.

 

What is accurate to say is that lower IQ less hard working people will get to share in on the spoils from higher IQ harder working people. Stated that way at least we get to see who society treats as the moral equivalents of the handicapped or children.

 

Plus, wouldn't the extra spoils per kid financially advantage Rs compared to the Ks? That is one of the major problems with the welfare system now, is the built in incentive for the poor and dumb to have as many kids as possible.

 

"If this could actually replace all the other welfare state measures, it would be very positive."

 

Positive for whom? You? Or are you making a moral judgement?

[Des]

What? did you just come up with a community where everyone "auctions" off all of their assets every year hoping to get 20% ROA? that doesn't even make sense. Someone is going to work for 5 years to save up enough money to buy a car then the next year auction it off hopefully getting 20% ROA? what if they have to take out a loan does the loan go with the car or do they have to hope they eventually make enough to pay it off? what if they just bought the only Ferrari in the community, wait that wouldn't happen because everyone would be forced to by the worst items since they'll be forced to sell it anyway so they want to spend as little money on it as possible. 

 

Lastly, if they want to join this community then they are not being forced to participate (i.e. they live in a free society) if they are forced to join the community then they are no longer living in a free society. if they are not forced to join but are forced to participate then they are again not living in a free society. They may lose the "benefits" of being it that ridiculously backwards and unsustainable "community" but that is not force. As soon as force comes into play it is no longer a free society. Thus being forced to do something and living in a free society are still mutually exclusive.

"20% ROA"

If you agreed to auction off all your assets at end of year, and put 10% of proceeds into the kitty, then what you bid for with your 90% of proceeds, you will either expect to get (significantly) more than 11,1% return on the asking price, or, you will bid lower than the asking price.

 

If you are outbid by someone outside the community, then the community benefits by the ejection of an asset underperforming relative to the alternate assets.

 

Remember that the return in ROA need not be tangible, it is in how the (would-be) owner perceives his benefit relative to the alternative of (not buying into) / cashing out of the asset.

 

For car hire purchase, the contract of sale specifies whether the buyer owns the car from delivery, or the seller owns the car until paid for. The owner knows he must auction it off each year, and the parties work this knowledge into the deal.

 

You won't buy the worst item if you get 9% ROA on the worst item, at the would-be seller's bottom price.

 

You have said nothing to support your statement that such a community is unsustainable. Would you like to provide some support?

 

I typed contract. Where did you get initiation of force from what I typed? Please quote what you take issue with, specifically, in what I typed.

 

"ridiculously backwards" is not an argument.

 

Thanks for your participation, I don't rate it as really investigative, curious and well-thought-out, but I appreciate your feedback and would like to discuss further.

[Des]

 

If this could actually replace all the other welfare state measures, it would be very positive. I wrote about this on my blog:

 

I would call my system the ‘share of spoils’ system. The system has two components: the input, which I would call ‘the loot’, and the output, which I would call ‘the spoils’. Every citizen in the country with an income is to be looted by the government, while every citizen, including children, whether they have an income or not, is to share in the spoils. The looting is to be done by taking a fixed proportion of everyone’s annual income, let’s say 10% for now. But when distributing the spoils, each citizen is to receive the exact same monetary amount as one another, determined by dividing the amount of money loot by the number of citizens. For example, if the annual 10% income levy resulted in $150 billion of loot, and there were 30 million citizens in the country, than each citizen would receive $5000 for that year as their share of the spoils.

 

One of the main merits of this system is its simplicity. Relatively little bureaucracy is needed to make it work. The flat proportional looting rate keeps assessment relatively simple, the only thing that must be determined is the person’s income for that year, no messing around with income brackets or credits. For spoils distribution, no ‘needs test’ is necessary, and the same, standardized payment can just be sent to everyone in the country.

 

Besides simplicity, the flatness and universality of the looting rate and the spoils distribution amount also reduces, as much as possible, the negative effect on production incentives that any system of redistribution will necessarily have. With my system, there is no special disincentive to move up from one set income bracket to the next, as there is in most countries’ current ‘needs based welfare’ and ‘progressive taxation’ systems. The general production disincentive will of course remain, as the higher people’s income, the more monetary units will be looted from them. But as long as the flat proportional looting rate is not set too high, this shouldn’t be a major problem.

 

If it were contractual, it would not be looting. Since income is dodgy to determine, I say the contract would need to call for an annual auction of all non-money assets (so that all assets have a money value which gets a percentage levy).

 

Also, probably better to not redistribute to minor children, because that incentivises breeding, and also because they cannot be parties to the contract.

[Koroviev]

"20% ROA"

If you agreed to auction off all your assets at end of year, and put 10% of proceeds into the kitty, then what you bid for with your 90% of proceeds, you will either expect to get (significantly) more than 11,1% return on the asking price, or, you will bid lower than the asking price.

 

If you are outbid by someone outside the community, then the community benefits by the ejection of an asset underperforming relative to the alternate assets.

 

Remember that the return in ROA need not be tangible, it is in how the (would-be) owner perceives his benefit relative to the alternative of (not buying into) / cashing out of the asset.

 

For car hire purchase, the contract of sale specifies whether the buyer owns the car from delivery, or the seller owns the car until paid for. The owner knows he must auction it off each year, and the parties work this knowledge into the deal.

 

You won't buy the worst item if you get 9% ROA on the worst item, at the would-be seller's bottom price.

 

You have said nothing to support your statement that such a community is unsustainable. Would you like to provide some support?

 

I typed contract. Where did you get initiation of force from what I typed? Please quote what you take issue with, specifically, in what I typed.

 

"ridiculously backwards" is not an argument.

 

Thanks for your participation, I don't rate it as really investigative, curious and well-thought-out, but I appreciate your feedback and would like to discuss further.

 

It doesn't seem to me like you actually read my response. We were talking about if living in a free society and being forced to do something were mutually exclusive. If you sign a contract, assuming no coercion, then you are not being forced to do something. If you are being forced to "auction" your goods then you are not in a free society.

 

Everything outside of that was me being surprised at what you were proposing and making a case, sure maybe not the best case, but making a case against it. The arguments were:

- it seems unlikely someone would save money for something simply to be required to sell it in a couple of months. Especially since it's lost a lot of value being used as opposed to when they bought it new.

-The proposed system would make loans a nightmare. Lets say I take out a $20,000 loan to buy a new car (the loaner owns the car) the car immediately loses value (unless I never drive it, or sit in it, or look at it) I still owe $20,000 to the loaner and have to hope to sell it at the end of the year for $24,000 (20% ROA unless I'm misunderstanding). Now, if the loan stays with me I send the $20,000 (assuming no interest for simplicity) to the loaner and have gained $4,000 but once again do not have a car and the person I sold my car to has overpaid (i.e. lost) $7,800 buying a used car (cars lose about 19% of their value after the first year). This is assuming there's no interest on the loan AND I'm able to sell a used car (which has lost about 20% of it's value) for 20% more than I had paid for it. If the loan stays with the car then I have made $4,000 and the loaner is still down $20,000 for at least another year while the car the loaner owns continues to depreciate in value (cars lose about 31% after the second year, and so on) so the new loanee now owes the $20,000 (again still assuming no interest for simplicity) while the car is now only worth $13,800 which he originally paid $24,000. Obviously the new loanee isn't going to pay that back either but instead pass the loan to the next guy, and I think you can see where this goes from here.

-No one would buy anything but the bare minimum and especially nothing extravagant. I save up for years to buy a new Ferrari. Next year I have to try to sell a used Ferrari for more than what I paid and someone else has to buy my new Ferrari for less that what they've sold.

 

Those were my arguments, but wait, there's more!

 

-Are people required to buy everything that's being auctioned?

-where do you draw the line on what has to be auctioned? would I have to auction my child's teddy bear? what about my wife's wedding ring?

-does everyone start out with assets or do they have to sell all their assets to join?

-does everyone sell all of their assets at exactly the same time or does the person who had to work on auction day get screwed out of selling everything?

-what happens if you don't sell all your assets?

-what happens if you don't have things others want?

-what about the person who has the things everyone wants?

-what if my house burns down the day before auction day? Now I can't sell it AND I still have to somehow get a 20% ROA. 

-Is the auctioneer exempt? how are they supposed to sell/buy their items when they're auctioning everyone else's

-what about the last person to sell their assets, do they get a bunch of cash and no house?

-do people have to sell their clothes? toothbrushes?

 

tl;dr

1. being forced to do something and living in a free society are mutually exclusive.

2. In a free society you are more than welcome to organize anyway you want, but the "auction everything" society doesn't seem viable, to me at least.

[Des]

 

-where do you draw the line on what has to be auctioned? would I have to auction my child's teddy bear? what about my wife's wedding ring?

-do people have to sell their clothes? toothbrushes?

The above are valuable criticisms, I will think if I can refine the proposal to deal with that. I would not sign a contract to auction off a child's personal items or playthings, and I would not want to live around other people who did, I'd want to find a way to rescue the children.

 

So, yeah, potential loophole, and a challenge to balance between children keeping their teddy bears and children keeping their 10 favourite gold ingots (because loophole).

 

It doesn't seem to me like you actually read my response. We were talking about if living in a free society and being forced to do something were mutually exclusive. If you sign a contract, assuming no coercion, then you are not being forced to do something. If you are being forced to "auction" your goods then you are not in a free society.

Mmm, I did not respond to say that I grasp the difference between coerced and voluntary. I could have made more effort, both to type my words in a nicer way (wrt tone), and also to say clearly that I don't want to see people compelled to become members of a community such as I am suggesting (Allow me to slip in my apology here, I'm sorry, sincerely. Also please allow me to continue the current train of thought). On the other hand, you can tell me if I am wrong, that if permission to be in the neighbourhood is a contractually agreed benefit of membership, and a person loses membership in a manner agreed by contract, and if he has agreed he may be evicted by force on losing membership and failing to leave - then if he does not leave, the other members pick him up and carry him out as per contract.

 

Contracts quite normally contain a promise and some alternate promises (e.g. I'll stick to the deal, or, I'll leave, or, you can carry me out [here is my advance permission for you to do so]).

 

 

 

-The proposed system would make loans a nightmare. Lets say I take out a $20,000 loan to buy a new car (the loaner owns the car) the car immediately loses value (unless I never drive it, or sit in it, or look at it) I still owe $20,000 to the loaner and have to hope to sell it at the end of the year for $24,000 (20% ROA unless I'm misunderstanding). Now, if the loan stays with me I send the $20,000 (assuming no interest for simplicity) to the loaner and have gained $4,000 but once again do not have a car and the person I sold my car to has overpaid (i.e. lost) $7,800 buying a used car (cars lose about 19% of their value after the first year). This is assuming there's no interest on the loan AND I'm able to sell a used car (which has lost about 20% of it's value) for 20% more than I had paid for it. If the loan stays with the car then I have made $4,000 and the loaner is still down $20,000 for at least another year while the car the loaner owns continues to depreciate in value (cars lose about 31% after the second year, and so on) so the new loanee now owes the $20,000 (again still assuming no interest for simplicity) while the car is now only worth $13,800 which he originally paid $24,000. Obviously the new loanee isn't going to pay that back either but instead pass the loan to the next guy, and I think you can see where this goes from here.

You borrow $20,000 and buy a car. You pay $350 / mth on the loan, owe $15,800 at auction time.

Because you have a car, you earn $450 more per month than you would if you had to work closer to home.

The lender owns the car, he can bid up to $15 800 to keep it as his posession.

If someone bids more, the car is still subject to your contract of purchase, and, as per contract, your monthly payments go to the new owner, and when the car is paid up, it is your car, and the new owner has collected $4,200 for each 12 months until he has the $15,800 balance which was due per contract.

 

Actually, someone might buy a car he will probably never get, because of that word "probably". If a prospective owner estimates you may default and he may get a rare car at a good price, he may roll the dice.

 

At end of year 1, the owner will contribute $1,580 to the community kitty if no-one bids higher than the $15,800 they expect to get from you as the hire-purchaser. Subsequent years: $1,160 ; $740 ; $320. Total payment to community kitty: $3 800.

 

Result is you will get the car for $20,000 if the production cost is about $14,000 since the producer will want to have some after kitty-contribution profit.

 

Now if $3,800 contribution on a production effort of $14,000 - is way higher than what statists do, then why not try 5% instead of 10%.

Here, the value-added tax alone, on $20,000 : would be $2,456 : that is without the other taxes.

 

Remember, you as the hire-purchaser are scoring $100 / mth with your better job.

Also note that the car factory is only fiscally worth a limited (but variable) multiple of what it can generate annually in after kitty-contribution income. The auction price of the factory will be discounted by bidders, based on the owner's contractual obligation to contribute. I can do that example for you too, unless you want to try it. Pick how many cars it produces per year (for $14,000 and sells for $20,000), and I can value it.

 

The producer has his profit. The community has some kitty to re-distribute. When a community member comes begging, you ask for an account of how he spent his share of kitty money, before you reach for your wallet.

 

I am proposing a contractual system of sharing, more predictable than non-contractual charity, and in addition to non-contractual charity.

I am stating that this is both morally permissible (being contractual), and way less communal than full-on communism.

 

Benefits include:

1. Greater motivation for members to co-operate with security services, fire services, and other services contracted to protect the assets of the more wealthy members.

2. More optimal risk-taking. I would try a business idea, knowing that upon failure, I need not beg, I can survive on the ex-kitty stipend until I get a better idea.

 

Also, I have some thoughts about what you may think are obvious loopholes created by the hire-purchase contract as above. Will omit those and wait for your first response.

[Koroviev]

Mmm, I did not respond to say that I grasp the difference between coerced and voluntary. I could have made more effort, both to type my words in a nicer way (wrt tone), and also to say clearly that I don't want to see people compelled to become members of a community such as I am suggesting (Allow me to slip in my apology here, I'm sorry, sincerely. Also please allow me to continue the current train of thought). On the other hand, you can tell me if I am wrong, that if permission to be in the neighbourhood is a contractually agreed benefit of membership, and a person loses membership in a manner agreed by contract, and if he has agreed he may be evicted by force on losing membership and failing to leave - then if he does not leave, the other members pick him up and carry him out as per contract.

 

Contracts quite normally contain a promise and some alternate promises (e.g. I'll stick to the deal, or, I'll leave, or, you can carry me out [here is my advance permission for you to do so]).

 

I highly doubt anyone (especially in a free society) would sign a contract allowing people to forcefully remove them from their house and take all of their belongings (especially without a clause for them to change their mind), but yes if they did it would no longer be the initiation of the use of force since they gave their permission which still makes the two mutually exclusive. Giving my permission for someone to do something means they are not forcing me to do it.

 

You borrow $20,000 and buy a car. You pay $350 / mth on the loan, owe $15,800 at auction time.

Because you have a car, you earn $450 more per month than you would if you had to work closer to home.

The lender owns the car, he can bid up to $15 800 to keep it as his posession.

If someone bids more, the car is still subject to your contract of purchase, and, as per contract, your monthly payments go to the new owner, and when the car is paid up, it is your car, and the new owner has collected $4,200 for each 12 months until he has the $15,800 balance which was due per contract.

 

Actually, someone might buy a car he will probably never get, because of that word "probably". If a prospective owner estimates you may default and he may get a rare car at a good price, he may roll the dice.

 

At end of year 1, the owner will contribute $1,580 to the community kitty if no-one bids higher than the $15,800 they expect to get from you as the hire-purchaser. Subsequent years: $1,160 ; $740 ; $320. Total payment to community kitty: $3 800.

 

Result is you will get the car for $20,000 if the production cost is about $14,000 since the producer will want to have some after kitty-contribution profit.

 

Now if $3,800 contribution on a production effort of $14,000 - is way higher than what statists do, then why not try 5% instead of 10%.

Here, the value-added tax alone, on $20,000 : would be $2,456 : that is without the other taxes.

 

Remember, you as the hire-purchaser are scoring $100 / mth with your better job.

Also note that the car factory is only fiscally worth a limited (but variable) multiple of what it can generate annually in after kitty-contribution income. The auction price of the factory will be discounted by bidders, based on the owner's contractual obligation to contribute. I can do that example for you too, unless you want to try it. Pick how many cars it produces per year (for $14,000 and sells for $20,000), and I can value it.

 

The producer has his profit. The community has some kitty to re-distribute. When a community member comes begging, you ask for an account of how he spent his share of kitty money, before you reach for your wallet.

 

I am proposing a contractual system of sharing, more predictable than non-contractual charity, and in addition to non-contractual charity.

I am stating that this is both morally permissible (being contractual), and way less communal than full-on communism.

 

Benefits include:

1. Greater motivation for members to co-operate with security services, fire services, and other services contracted to protect the assets of the more wealthy members.

2. More optimal risk-taking. I would try a business idea, knowing that upon failure, I need not beg, I can survive on the ex-kitty stipend until I get a better idea.

 

Also, I have some thoughts about what you may think are obvious loopholes created by the hire-purchase contract as above. Will omit those and wait for your first response.

 

yes I understand that you are trying to make communism work by adding a "free market" element but the reality is communism, no matter how you spin it, will not work. It will benefit a very small minority of individuals and everyone else will suffer. People don't like moving, people buy things they specifically want and need, if I buy a new car I'm not going to want to turn around and sell it for someone else's jolapy. Not to mention people would buy less new items because they have to save their money to buy other's used items they were forced to sell so there would be less manufacturing of new goods.

 

Finally, no one would ever actually start businesses or even be able to start businesses since most startups fail within the first year and the ones that don't take way more than a year to become successful. So if I were to invest all of my money into something I am passionate about and somehow make it successful before I have to sell it at the end of the year so that I can earn back the money I spent to start it (and the money lost because I wasn't doing other things) I would then have to watch it crumble since the likelihood of someone with even remotely similar passion and skills buying that company are slim to none.

 

Again, you'd be free to try whatever you want I just can't see how anyone would think giving up all of their assets every single year would ever be a good idea.

[Des]

I highly doubt anyone (especially in a free society) would sign a contract allowing people to forcefully remove them from their house.

My motivation for signing it would be:

By signing it, I am allowed to live where other people have also signed it. This gives me the assurance that the other people in that area will either comply with the same community rules (with which I intend to comply), or else they will be expelled (in the extreme case that they refuse to make amends and return to compliance). Some actions are morally permissible, but unpleasant for me to tolerate [for example: my neighbour builds a skyscraper - in the world of the future- this is a likely cause of many disputes]. To get reciprocal agreement between me and each other resident, I agree (on pain of expulsion), to restrict my actions a little, in return for each other resident agreeing to the same restrictions.

 

yes I understand that you are trying to make communism work by adding a "free market" element but the reality is communism, no matter how you spin it, will not work. It will benefit a very small minority of individuals and everyone else will suffer. 

I think that you and I are on the same page, wrt to government and communism. All government is communistic in nature. A very limited republic grows (as per USA), ever more communist.

 

It is not true to say that the original states of the USA, were doomed to fail because of their (very limited) communist nature. It is correct to say that they were doomed to fail eventually because of their moral error, and contained in their moral error is the seed of ever-expanding communism. It is the ever-expanding part of the original moral error, that dooms the project.

 

Morally, you cannot insist that a man pay 12%, if he agreed to 10% (or 5%). By understanding morality, and by including only people who understand and commit themselves to morality (and also commit themselves to some additional restrictions specific to their preferred community), and by expelling people who choose to quit compliance with the restrictions, a community can have a non-expanding version of limited communism.

 

Again, you'd be free to try whatever you want I just can't see how anyone would think giving up all of their assets every single year would ever be a good idea.

Putting an asset on auction, and keeping it, are not incompatible. In our social order as it stands, an auctioneer will refuse to auction an item with too high a reserve price (he does not want to waste time). If the auctioneer is offered a suitable contract to pay for his time (different from the current system of commission on sale price), he will agree to attempt to auction goods in a situation where (in many cases), the current owner bids the highest, and there is effectively no sale.

 

If you bid the highest for your home, you have effectively set the value of your home (to you), and thus set the value on which you are contracted to contribute to the community kitty, at the contracted rate.

 

If each member has a home worth $120,000 (and no other possessions) and each thus contributes $12,000 to the kitty at year end, then each will receive $1,000 per month the following year (whether there are 2 members or 2 million members). They could save this to pay towards the next year's contribution.

 

The member who bets his home on a business idea and loses the bet, has survival money, has a chance to keep going while looking for employment - and will not be incentivised to remain unemployed - because the monthly stipend will reflect in his bank account even if he gets a really good job.

 

In this simplified example where members own nothing except their homes, that bet-loser no longer contributes directly to the kitty, but the employer gains from employing him, the employer's assets increase, and so the employer contributes more at end of next year. Though this "broke" member contributes nothing directly to the kitty, the kitty gets a contribution from his effort, and pays his stipend from that.

 

My thesis is that some risks are better covered by limited voluntary communism, than by insurance. My prime example above, is that it is not fiscally appropriate to insure against business failure. A contractual community kitty is more appropriate as alternate to insurance for that risk. Note also, that insured and insurer can count on the contractual stipend, when planning insurance for risks for which insurance is appropriate (e.g. disability). Insurance costs (and payouts) are made lower because of the stipend. Some people go uninsured and hope for charity. In this set-up, they can go uninsured and can count on a contractual payment without needing to ask for charity. In this set-up, you insure to have your preferred level of comfort if disabled, not to merely survive if disabled (the stipend allows survival).

[Koroviev]

My motivation for signing it would be:

By signing it, I am allowed to live where other people have also signed it. This gives me the assurance that the other people in that area will either comply with the same community rules (with which I intend to comply), or else they will be expelled (in the extreme case that they refuse to make amends and return to compliance). Some actions are morally permissible, but unpleasant for me to tolerate [for example: my neighbour builds a skyscraper - in the world of the future- this is a likely cause of many disputes]. To get reciprocal agreement between me and each other resident, I agree (on pain of expulsion), to restrict my actions a little, in return for each other resident agreeing to the same restrictions.

 

And I will forever fight for your right to have the freedom to sign up for whatever community you want, even once it becomes involuntary and coerced. As for your neighbor building a skyscraper in a free society that neighbor would have way more costs (insurance, not BIG, etc.) and way more risks (if it fails it's almost 100% your neighbor's fault) not to mention if that's something you are worried about I would get that put into the contract language when buying the house, and take other steps to ensure it doesn't happen. As opposed to the benefits your neighbor would receive in your proposed society. The neighbor receives a stipend each month that, assuming the neighbor is working, could go directly toward costs, if it goes well win for your neighbor they get to sell it at the end of the year and make huge profits because of how much they've increased their land value and the rent they've surely accumulated, all-in-all a huge win. If the skyscraper fails, well they are required to sell it at the end of the year so they'll receive at least part of their expenses (could be a large part if bidding is required to start at +20% of costs) and even if this completely bankrupts your neighbor he still gets the comfortable life YOU as his neighbor are paying for. To recap in the free society your neighbor would take all of the costs and risks on himself, would have to go through contracts and insurance companies (i.e. you would get insurance claims) and/or would have to directly pay you for having to put up with the skyscraper and/or relocating. Whereas in the "communo-auction" community the neighbor takes reduced costs (your money goes to pay for the skyscraper you don't want), reduced risks (if he fails you will pay for him to live and he get's to sell it at the end of the year), and huge incentive (if he succeeds major payoffs). 

 

So that this doesn't become to long I'll stop here and wait for your response before moving on to my other issues with the previous comment. Great discussion btw really enjoying it!

[Des]

Great discussion btw really enjoying it!

Thanks. I am also enjoying the discussion.

And I will forever fight for your right to have the freedom to sign up for whatever community you want, even once it becomes involuntary and coerced.

Thanks that you would support the principle of freedom to associate with and disassociate from people, even if you don't have a taste for my choices.  Actually, my advice to people joining communities, is that they check on the exit conditions, and stay away from communities which would expect to keep the property of a departing member (except in settlement of a valid claim for damages). I don't like statism partly because I can't get my share of South Africa's public assets and liabilities and leave here with my share.

 

The neighbor receives a stipend each month that, assuming the neighbor is working, could go directly toward costs, if it goes well win for your neighbor they get to sell it at the end of the year and make huge profits because of how much they've increased their land value and the rent they've surely accumulated, all-in-all a huge win. If the skyscraper fails, well they are required to sell it at the end of the year so they'll receive at least part of their expenses (could be a large part if bidding is required to start at +20% of costs) and even if this completely bankrupts your neighbor he still gets the comfortable life YOU as his neighbor are paying for. To recap in the free society your neighbor would take all of the costs and risks on himself, would have to go through contracts and insurance companies (i.e. you would get insurance claims) and/or would have to directly pay you for having to put up with the skyscraper and/or relocating. Whereas in the "communo-auction" community the neighbor takes reduced costs (your money goes to pay for the skyscraper you don't want), reduced risks (if he fails you will pay for him to live and he get's to sell it at the end of the year), and huge incentive (if he succeeds major payoffs). 

I understand the basic economic argument against statism, is that we all (in general) prefer to privatise profit and socialise costs. So in statism other people are doing this with greater success than I do, and I am paying their bills.

 

Firstly, somewhere in the future, the actual construction costs of a tall building, fall really low, because cheap energy plus nanotechnology allows cheap building that is really strong and is an active machine, responding to wind or earthquake in an active way that reduces risk to life and property.

 

However, predicting my preference in the event I were in that future world, I would prefer to live in a neighbourhood where our buildings all joined at one uniform level, the garden level, and I can walk or cycle through all of / any of the gardens at any time (motorised transport below the garden level). There would be no buildings above the garden level, and also no drop-offs for residents to fall off or jump off.

 

I don't want to get this by coercion, I want to live where people accept this as the most delightful way to live, and sign up for the rules.

 

I also get it that if people are not coerced, I can buy from my neighbour, favours like not building stuff I don't like. What I am proposing is an organised way to trade favours (you don't put my garden in shade of tall building, I don't put your garden in shade of tall building - all sign up and all stick to the deal - else sell up and buy a place where the unanimously agreed community rules suit me/you better).

 

Without a state to set borders, another option for people who wish to leave, is to buy a property on a border, and re-draw the border by joining the neighbouring community. This is a way that a poor ruleset (poor as evaluated by individual members against their preferences, according to actual outcomes) will cause a community to dissolve over time, so that the communities with better rulesets flourish.

 

Okay, someone builds a skyscraper, it is a business failure, they can't make a good return on the investment. So it gets an auction value which is really low, and the owner, instead of paying a contribution on a really high value, compared to cost input, he contributes a percentage of a value lower than the input cost of building [perhaps on $1, perhaps on zero]. Until the auction value of the skyscraper improves, he contributes very little each year. So what he has done is spend money on a decoration (or eyesore depending on one's point-of-view). But that was his money to spend. If such an event occurs rarely, the impact on the monthly stipend will be low. If it becomes a pattern for wealthy people to "invest" in giant boondoggles, the rest of the community is going to disperse and leave those nuts to each other. Rational people will prefer to associate with other people in a community which builds itself up, financially.

 

 

[Koroviev]

Thanks. I am also enjoying the discussion.

Thanks that you would support the principle of freedom to associate with and disassociate from people, even if you don't have a taste for my choices.  Actually, my advice to people joining communities, is that they check on the exit conditions, and stay away from communities which would expect to keep the property of a departing member (except in settlement of a valid claim for damages). I don't like statism partly because I can't get my share of South Africa's public assets and liabilities and leave here with my share.

 

I understand the basic economic argument against statism, is that we all (in general) prefer to privatise profit and socialise costs. So in statism other people are doing this with greater success than I do, and I am paying their bills.

 

Firstly, somewhere in the future, the actual construction costs of a tall building, fall really low, because cheap energy plus nanotechnology allows cheap building that is really strong and is an active machine, responding to wind or earthquake in an active way that reduces risk to life and property.

 

However, predicting my preference in the event I were in that future world, I would prefer to live in a neighbourhood where our buildings all joined at one uniform level, the garden level, and I can walk or cycle through all of / any of the gardens at any time (motorised transport below the garden level). There would be no buildings above the garden level, and also no drop-offs for residents to fall off or jump off.

 

I don't want to get this by coercion, I want to live where people accept this as the most delightful way to live, and sign up for the rules.

 

I also get it that if people are not coerced, I can buy from my neighbour, favours like not building stuff I don't like. What I am proposing is an organised way to trade favours (you don't put my garden in shade of tall building, I don't put your garden in shade of tall building - all sign up and all stick to the deal - else sell up and buy a place where the unanimously agreed community rules suit me/you better).

 

Without a state to set borders, another option for people who wish to leave, is to buy a property on a border, and re-draw the border by joining the neighbouring community. This is a way that a poor ruleset (poor as evaluated by individual members against their preferences, according to actual outcomes) will cause a community to dissolve over time, so that the communities with better rulesets flourish.

 

Okay, someone builds a skyscraper, it is a business failure, they can't make a good return on the investment. So it gets an auction value which is really low, and the owner, instead of paying a contribution on a really high value, compared to cost input, he contributes a percentage of a value lower than the input cost of building [perhaps on $1, perhaps on zero]. Until the auction value of the skyscraper improves, he contributes very little each year. So what he has done is spend money on a decoration (or eyesore depending on one's point-of-view). But that was his money to spend. If such an event occurs rarely, the impact on the monthly stipend will be low. If it becomes a pattern for wealthy people to "invest" in giant boondoggles, the rest of the community is going to disperse and leave those nuts to each other. Rational people will prefer to associate with other people in a community which builds itself up, financially.

 

The point was that there is much more incentive for your neighbor to build a skyscraper in the society you are proposing than in a free society. I'm not seeing an argument against that, unless it's that people in that society would also agree to not build buildings higher than one story which is moving the goal posts, so I am going to assume that I made that case and move on to my next point. If I missed something please let me know.

 

I think that you and I are on the same page, wrt to government and communism. All government is communistic in nature. A very limited republic grows (as per USA), ever more communist.

 

It is not true to say that the original states of the USA, were doomed to fail because of their (very limited) communist nature. It is correct to say that they were doomed to fail eventually because of their moral error, and contained in their moral error is the seed of ever-expanding communism. It is the ever-expanding part of the original moral error, that dooms the project.

 

Morally, you cannot insist that a man pay 12%, if he agreed to 10% (or 5%). By understanding morality, and by including only people who understand and commit themselves to morality (and also commit themselves to some additional restrictions specific to their preferred community), and by expelling people who choose to quit compliance with the restrictions, a community can have a non-expanding version of limited communism.

 

We are almost on the same page I think the difference is that I am saying all governments are ever-expanding it is the very nature of government to expand. A government's (I know some people see government as including self-government but I am using government in the traditional sense here as a synonym for state) entire purpose is to enforce the moral rules either set by the people (democracy, republic) or set by the rulers (monarchy, communism). Thus even the smallest government, such as the early US, is destined to continuously grow larger, i.e. US today, or fail. If nothing else this is simply because the government does not produce anything it always consumes. A government cannot survive without a constant influx of money (taxes) thus it must grow larger to collect that money (IRS), and then needs more money to support the larger size, and so on and so forth. 

 

Thus it would not be much of a leap to assume the same would happen in your proposed society, especially from your viewpoint that it's the "seed of communism" that causes governments to grow. The "community" has to somehow collect and distribute the money the citizens give them. I'm assuming part of that income would go to other "community improvements," but if not someone has to pay and train the auctioneer, enforce the contracts when people decide they don't want to sell all of their possessions, and forcefully remove people when they no longer want to participate. The more things like this the "community" needs the bigger it will grow and the more it will need.

 

Again for the sake of everyone else on the board I'm going to stop here and wait for your response as to not have a wall of text no one will read.

[Des]

We are almost on the same page I think the difference is that I am saying all governments are ever-expanding it is the very nature of government to expand. A government's (I know some people see government as including self-government but I am using government in the traditional sense here as a synonym for state) entire purpose is to enforce the moral rules either set by the people (democracy, republic) or set by the rulers (monarchy, communism). Thus even the smallest government, such as the early US, is destined to continuously grow larger, i.e. US today, or fail. If nothing else this is simply because the government does not produce anything it always consumes. A government cannot survive without a constant influx of money (taxes) thus it must grow larger to collect that money (IRS), and then needs more money to support the larger size, and so on and so forth. 

 

Thus it would not be much of a leap to assume the same would happen in your proposed society, especially from your viewpoint that it's the "seed of communism" that causes governments to grow. The "community" has to somehow collect and distribute the money the citizens give them. I'm assuming part of that income would go to other "community improvements," but if not someone has to pay and train the auctioneer, enforce the contracts when people decide they don't want to sell all of their possessions, and forcefully remove people when they no longer want to participate. The more things like this the "community" needs the bigger it will grow and the more it will need.

 

Again for the sake of everyone else on the board I'm going to stop here and wait for your response as to not have a wall of text no one will read.

If you are saying government as in a state, as in a territorial monopoly on the use of force - you and I agree that a state is a moral error, because whichever situations allow me to morally use force, also allow you to morally use force (if you were in the corresponding situation). Correct me I am wrong, in saying you agree.

 

No, get disputes resolved in private courts, hire private security to enforce a court decision, if you choose to (within the limits of force set by the court). I don't want to live in a community where there is any community property over which members would vote on how to use the property. I prefer that each asset has a private owner (which private owner may be a set of shareholders, each of whom can sell their share if they can't agree with the majority vote of the other shareholders [shareholders vote their share, not by head count]). So, no government, no community assets as such (assets get bundled together, and unbundled, by market action). Merely a contract between perhaps 1,000 or 10,000 landowners who have bought near to each other for the purpose of restricting each other's behaviour in additional ways over and above basic moral proscriptions - a contract for each member's personal benefit of not having neighbours do things distasteful to him.  So if a lack of charitible contribution by neighbours, is distasteful to me, I am agreeing to the mutual restriction (myself and every neighbour) that our annual charity to neighbours not go below x% of assets at year-end, and this charity be distributed equally among all members, paid as a monthly stipend for the following 12 months.

 

Also, new rules are by unanimous consent. Ask me more about that, if you like, but the answer may be off-topic. What is on-topic above, is my explanation that there need be no government, for there to be basic income as an additional ethic for a community to voluntarily and unanimously adopt, over and above the non-optional ethics of non-aggression.

 

As to what you say about community services, in general, people voluntarily get shared services for efficiency (e.g. a housing complex with a gate and security guards [common in South Africa], has shared security. If the value-for-money on the shared service were really low, residents would sell-up and move. They don't - because one entrance and 5 guards, a pool service and a garden service shared among 60 homes gives good value-for-money, when private contractors answer to a committee of homeowners). BIG-style re-distribution is really low-cost on administration, and it is just one of a number of services people will tend to share for efficiency. Let each member hire his own auditor of the BIG, they will soon be sharing that service, hiring only 1, 2, or 3 audit firms between the 10 000 members. Let each hire his own auctioneer, same result. What remains is a simple banking function (and a possibility for dispute about who can be trusted to do that simple function).

[Koroviev]

If you are saying government as in a state, as in a territorial monopoly on the use of force - you and I agree that a state is a moral error, because whichever situations allow me to morally use force, also allow you to morally use force (if you were in the corresponding situation). Correct me I am wrong, in saying you agree.

 

No, get disputes resolved in private courts, hire private security to enforce a court decision, if you choose to (within the limits of force set by the court). I don't want to live in a community where there is any community property over which members would vote on how to use the property. I prefer that each asset has a private owner (which private owner may be a set of shareholders, each of whom can sell their share if they can't agree with the majority vote of the other shareholders [shareholders vote their share, not by head count]). So, no government, no community assets as such (assets get bundled together, and unbundled, by market action). Merely a contract between perhaps 1,000 or 10,000 landowners who have bought near to each other for the purpose of restricting each other's behaviour in additional ways over and above basic moral proscriptions - a contract for each member's personal benefit of not having neighbours do things distasteful to him.  So if a lack of charitible contribution by neighbours, is distasteful to me, I am agreeing to the mutual restriction (myself and every neighbour) that our annual charity to neighbours not go below x% of assets at year-end, and this charity be distributed equally among all members, paid as a monthly stipend for the following 12 months.

 

Also, new rules are by unanimous consent. Ask me more about that, if you like, but the answer may be off-topic. What is on-topic above, is my explanation that there need be no government, for there to be basic income as an additional ethic for a community to voluntarily and unanimously adopt, over and above the non-optional ethics of non-aggression.

 

As to what you say about community services, in general, people voluntarily get shared services for efficiency (e.g. a housing complex with a gate and security guards [common in South Africa], has shared security. If the value-for-money on the shared service were really low, residents would sell-up and move. They don't - because one entrance and 5 guards, a pool service and a garden service shared among 60 homes gives good value-for-money, when private contractors answer to a committee of homeowners). BIG-style re-distribution is really low-cost on administration, and it is just one of a number of services people will tend to share for efficiency. Let each member hire his own auditor of the BIG, they will soon be sharing that service, hiring only 1, 2, or 3 audit firms between the 10 000 members. Let each hire his own auctioneer, same result. What remains is a simple banking function (and a possibility for dispute about who can be trusted to do that simple function).

 

Ok, so who controls the community savings account? who hires the people to force you out of your house if you don't follow the rules? who forces or hires the people to force you to auction all of your stuff? Is the whole community run by one corporation who makes all of these decisions? If so how do they make money, taking a piece off the top?

[Des]

Ok, so who controls the community savings account? who hires the people to force you out of your house if you don't follow the rules? who forces or hires the people to force you to auction all of your stuff? Is the whole community run by one corporation who makes all of these decisions? If so how do they make money, taking a piece off the top?

Thanks, yes, I was thinking about the distribution of funds issue, after typing my previous reply, and I thought:

The contract says each contracted party is personally responsible for distributing the x% of his year-end asset value, to each of the other parties to the contract, in monthly sums. The distribution may be delegated by each party, to an agent (a bank), but each party retains his personal responsibility. This way you get maybe 3 good bankers doing the distribution efficiently, through free market action, because rational people won't typically be personally walking door-to-door every monthend making tiny payments, they will appoint someone who can do efficient distribution. Insurers insure parties against liability arising from misconduct of agent, so the agents (banks) end up answering to insurers, and that keeps them honest.

 

Let me repeat in concrete example: I pay an insurer to insure me against being sued for failure to distribute (breach of contract), or failure to auction my assets. My insurer is going to vet my distribution agent and my auctioneer, and only insure me because they trust these agents. I pay my insurer and my auctioneer, I pay the agent for his service, and I transfer the x% from my account into the agent's distribution account. I also insure against not receiving my full stipend.

 

Now if someone does not pay (me), my insurer pays me and bundles together the suit by others who like me, have insurance with him against not getting full stipend. The insurer sues, I just get the stipend as per contract. Whoever did not chip in, answers to a handful of insurers (who will probably join their lawsuit into one action).

 

[credit Hans-Hermann Hoppe for pointing to the conclusion that it is the innovation of insurance which actually makes government obsolete]

Stated differently, government was a primitive version of insurance (and the innovation of government is now obsolete).

[Koroviev]

Thanks, yes, I was thinking about the distribution of funds issue, after typing my previous reply, and I thought:

The contract says each contracted party is personally responsible for distributing the x% of his year-end asset value, to each of the other parties to the contract, in monthly sums. The distribution may be delegated by each party, to an agent (a bank), but each party retains his personal responsibility. This way you get maybe 3 good bankers doing the distribution efficiently, through free market action, because rational people won't typically be personally walking door-to-door every monthend making tiny payments, they will appoint someone who can do efficient distribution. Insurers insure parties against liability arising from misconduct of agent, so the agents (banks) end up answering to insurers, and that keeps them honest.

 

Let me repeat in concrete example: I pay an insurer to insure me against being sued for failure to distribute (breach of contract), or failure to auction my assets. My insurer is going to vet my distribution agent and my auctioneer, and only insure me because they trust these agents. I pay my insurer and my auctioneer, I pay the agent for his service, and I transfer the x% from my account into the agent's distribution account. I also insure against not receiving my full stipend.

 

Now if someone does not pay (me), my insurer pays me and bundles together the suit by others who like me, have insurance with him against not getting full stipend. The insurer sues, I just get the stipend as per contract. Whoever did not chip in, answers to a handful of insurers (who will probably join their lawsuit into one action).

 

[credit Hans-Hermann Hoppe for pointing to the conclusion that it is the innovation of insurance which actually makes government obsolete]

Stated differently, government was a primitive version of insurance (and the innovation of government is now obsolete).

 

So, let me make sure I understand. You would be a rational person in a free society of only rational people who pays a private entity to force you to sell all of your assets every year so that you can pay that private entity to give you and all of the rational people in that free society a smaller amount of that money back each year so that you can add it to the money you already make from your regular job? 

[AncapFTW]

Let me get this straight.  You are so committed to the idea of income redistribution that you want to join a community with requires you to sign a contract in which you consent to an overly complex and inefficient system of wealth redistribution in order to join said community, a contract which people who would benefit from said redistribution would flock, but which would drive away those that wouldn't benefit from it?

 

Have you considered just donating everything you earn over a certain amount to charity or, better yet, just starting your own charity?  It would be way less complex, more efficient and wouldn't result in everyone who can earn a decent living in the area needing charity themselves.

[Des]

Let me get this straight.  You are so committed to the idea of income redistribution that you want to join a community with requires you to sign a contract in which you consent to an overly complex and inefficient system of wealth redistribution in order to join said community, a contract which people who would benefit from said redistribution would flock, but which would drive away those that wouldn't benefit from it?

 

Have you considered just donating everything you earn over a certain amount to charity or, better yet, just starting your own charity?  It would be way less complex, more efficient and wouldn't result in everyone who can earn a decent living in the area needing charity themselves.

It would not be less complex. Charities pay people to assess who needs charity and who is lying. Giving charity to everyone, including those who don't register it as a blip in their bank account, is really efficient, compared to trying to do lie-detection. 10%, or 5% is not everything, it is probably less than people now pay in taxes.

 

Do you dislike people being immoral, or do you dislike people re-distributing money?

 

The wealthy benefit, because they can say to anyone who wants a hand-out: Join up and participate, or else don't. Either way I don't need to assess your particular need, I have other things to do with my time, and things to do with my money other than pay charitocrats to assess you.

 

Because they get this benefit, they stay. They also stay to sell stuff to people who get a stipend.

 

You say "over a certain amount" but the BIG idea is separate from the "income cap" idea, which I do not support - though I do think that rather than giving to charity, wealthy people would do us more of a favour by giving money back to the companies from which they receive dividends, with the request and suggestion to drop the product prices a tiny fraction, accordingly.

 

For example, malaria won't kill me or Bill Gates, old age will. I'd rather have a few cents off some MS product, thanks.

[AncapFTW]

It would not be less complex. Charities pay people to assess who needs charity and who is lying. Giving charity to everyone, including those who don't register it as a blip in their bank account, is really efficient, compared to trying to do lie-detection. 10%, or 5% is not everything, it is probably less than people now pay in taxes.

 

Do you dislike people being immoral, or do you dislike people re-distributing money?

 

The wealthy benefit, because they can say to anyone who wants a hand-out: Join up and participate, or else don't. Either way I don't need to assess your particular need, I have other things to do with my time, and things to do with my money other than pay charitocrats to assess you.

 

Because they get this benefit, they stay. They also stay to sell stuff to people who get a stipend.

 

You say "over a certain amount" but the BIG idea is separate from the "income cap" idea, which I do not support - though I do think that rather than giving to charity, wealthy people would do us more of a favour by giving money back to the companies from which they receive dividends, with the request and suggestion to drop the product prices a tiny fraction, accordingly.

 

For example, malaria won't kill me or Bill Gates, old age will. I'd rather have a few cents off some MS product, thanks.

Why should they have to do you a favor?  They don't owe you, or anyone, anything unless you did something for it or they indebted themselves to them somehow.  By creating a society in which everyone MUST give to "charity", it stops becoming a charity and just becomes an entitlement.

[Des]

So, let me make sure I understand. You would be a rational person in a free society of only rational people who pays a private entity to force you to sell all of your assets every year so that you can pay that private entity to give you and all of the rational people in that free society a smaller amount of that money back each year so that you can add it to the money you already make from your regular job? 

Let me clarify. I already clarified that it is not one select private entity. Each person who wishes the contract enforced, pays his chosen insurer. You won't have 10 000 people paying 10 000 different insurers (you know how market efficiencies work, so you know that). Force is the last resort, the insurers will preserve their reputations by avoiding it as far as possible. If you have a hire-purchase contract to buy a car and you don't fulfill your part of the contract, the other party forces you to return the car (but they very seldom get into actual use of force - you'd have to be rather irrational to end up in handcuffs).

 

Let me point to what is consistent through what I suggest here, and into a different area: I suggest a contract for moral behaviour, and I suggest a contract (along BIG lines) as an alternate to financial donations to charity.

 

What is the common theme? I don't end up hoping for ordinary human reciprocity to kick in, The ordinary human reciprocity is formalised into contract. Sharing (a little of) my stuff, with a contractual re-assurance that others will do likewise, makes me less of a sucker, and the same applies to restricting myself to moral actions only, with contractual re-assurance that others will do likewise.

 

Charity (or incharity) will be a cause of dispute in a free society, and this is a dispute resolving suggestion. After signing, you'd be out of line calling your neighbour incharitible when he is paying his contractual dues (if you don't like 10%, go look for a 15% community and sign up there).

[Koroviev]

Let me clarify. I already clarified that it is not one select private entity. Each person who wishes the contract enforced, pays his chosen insurer. You won't have 10 000 people paying 10 000 different insurers (you know how market efficiencies work, so you know that). Force is the last resort, the insurers will preserve their reputations by avoiding it as far as possible. If you have a hire-purchase contract to buy a car and you don't fulfill your part of the contract, the other party forces you to return the car (but they very seldom get into actual use of force - you'd have to be rather irrational to end up in handcuffs).

 

Let me point to what is consistent through what I suggest here, and into a different area: I suggest a contract for moral behaviour, and I suggest a contract (along BIG lines) as an alternate to financial donations to charity.

 

What is the common theme? I don't end up hoping for ordinary human reciprocity to kick in, The ordinary human reciprocity is formalised into contract. Sharing (a little of) my stuff, with a contractual re-assurance that others will do likewise, makes me less of a sucker, and the same applies to restricting myself to moral actions only, with contractual re-assurance that others will do likewise.

 

Charity (or incharity) will be a cause of dispute in a free society, and this is a dispute resolving suggestion. After signing, you'd be out of line calling your neighbour incharitible when he is paying his contractual dues (if you don't like 10%, go look for a 15% community and sign up there).

 

There is a lot with the previous two statements that I have issues with but I don't really think it's beneficial or necessary to go into them and drag this out. The reality is that the only real evidence we have is the past failures of socialism and communism, outside of that we are talking about opinions and hopes and dreams. You yourself said that the U.S. was doomed to fail from the very beginning because of the "seed of ever-expanding communism." If what you say is true that because the U.S. had even the slightest hint of communism from the very beginning and thus was doomed to failure then it logically follows that any system with as much as or more communism in it is doomed to failure as well. What you are proposing is a modified form of socialism no matter how you look at it, thus by your own admission is doomed for failure. This does not mean I or anyone else would, or could, ban you from trying it out in a free society, but I think we have better things to dwell on, such as how to get from where we are to the free society where you are free to try out any system you want, or at least any system you can sell. 

[AncapFTW]

Let me clarify. I already clarified that it is not one select private entity. Each person who wishes the contract enforced, pays his chosen insurer. You won't have 10 000 people paying 10 000 different insurers (you know how market efficiencies work, so you know that). Force is the last resort, the insurers will preserve their reputations by avoiding it as far as possible. If you have a hire-purchase contract to buy a car and you don't fulfill your part of the contract, the other party forces you to return the car (but they very seldom get into actual use of force - you'd have to be rather irrational to end up in handcuffs).

 

Let me point to what is consistent through what I suggest here, and into a different area: I suggest a contract for moral behaviour, and I suggest a contract (along BIG lines) as an alternate to financial donations to charity.

 

What is the common theme? I don't end up hoping for ordinary human reciprocity to kick in, The ordinary human reciprocity is formalised into contract. Sharing (a little of) my stuff, with a contractual re-assurance that others will do likewise, makes me less of a sucker, and the same applies to restricting myself to moral actions only, with contractual re-assurance that others will do likewise.

 

Charity (or incharity) will be a cause of dispute in a free society, and this is a dispute resolving suggestion. After signing, you'd be out of line calling your neighbour incharitible when he is paying his contractual dues (if you don't like 10%, go look for a 15% community and sign up there).

It's no longer charity if you HAVE to do it.  This would turn it into a contractual obligation, not charity.  If society is forcing you to do it, it also isn't charity, just a societal obligation.

 

Besides, this wouldn't prevent anyone from crying "uncharitable" anyway, as the 15% will just call the 10%ers "uncharitable", and everyone will call the people not in a "charity" contract that.

[J215]

I am not even sure what the problem is that they are trying to fix with this. State plans most often achieve the opposite of the intended result. For examples of that just look at welfare to help the poor, wars to achieve peace, forced diversification in order to help race/gender relations. What is the goal of BIG? What problem are they trying to fix? 

Logistically taking money from the productive and then giving a set amount of money to everyone in a country would be a massive overhead and would be largely ignored by the middle to high income households (who logically would prefer less taxation in the first place).

It would seem to most benefit the poor given that they would receive a large chunk of resources that they otherwise would not have earned, but wouldn't that in the long run only add to the enabling and encouragement of them to depend on hand outs and not learn how to take care of themselves?

[Des]

I am not even sure what the problem is that they are trying to fix with this. State plans most often achieve the opposite of the intended result. For examples of that just look at welfare to help the poor, wars to achieve peace, forced diversification in order to help race/gender relations. What is the goal of BIG? What problem are they trying to fix? 

 

Logistically taking money from the productive and then giving a set amount of money to everyone in a country would be a massive overhead and would be largely ignored by the middle to high income households (who logically would prefer less taxation in the first place).

 

It would seem to most benefit the poor given that they would receive a large chunk of resources that they otherwise would not have earned, but wouldn't that in the long run only add to the enabling and encouragement of them to depend on hand outs and not learn how to take care of themselves?

One of the problems that BIG is mooted to solve, is the disincentive effect of means-based social security. The concept is to give every [adult] the BIG (including Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Paris Hilton). It is very clear that this tiny drop into those bank accounts is in no way a disincentive for such people. For those currently living on social payments, the idea is they can go and do something which pays money, and they will still get the BIG.

Another problem it solves is the problem of overheads. There need be no bureaucrats or charitocrats deciding which person or project needs funding. Those people can go get real jobs   (so I benefit because one of them does something for me at a fair price, and I benefit because I can pay less contribution [net of stipend] into BIG, for the same benefit to the needy).

The problem of how much to give, can be solved by allowing people to self-sort into communities: some with zero BIG, others with varying non-zero level of BIG. When people have criticisms of the level I choose, I will say: yes, well that is the level at which I also will receive - so it is fair.

 

Above ends my reply to you.

Below, more general reply on this thread:

 

Focus a little on sexual market value: Men (in general) will still go do something to get the bigger chunks of cheddar to impress the ladies. If most women quit bothering to get (additional) income (by market participation), and instead stay home and peacefully parent the children, that is a benefit (to me, and probably to you) in the form of fewer dangerous criminals and more men of good (and productive) nature. The man who sits home and video games all day, does not get to impress a quality woman. If he makes no children, this problem disappears over time. If he makes children, the demands of the children press him to go work to buy them things.

 

Keep in mind, wealthy employers need not care whether they pay directly to their workers, or pay some portion indirectly to all (workers and non-workers alike), and then pay only the incentive money to the workers. I am saying that costs of hiring unintelligent people go down, because the employer is not (directly) providing bread money, he is providing cheese money as the topping for the bread.

 

Another likely benefit (to me and probably you) is that people will be more likely to choose work that they (slightly) like. It will benefit me when people are not serving me whilst hating there job - I'll get better service.

 

Why we are discussing this here under economics, not under morality, is that this is an economic idea (if one takes away the moral issue by allowing this system to form by contract).

 

I did not assert that BIG is charity. I say BIG is a better idea than non-contractual charity.

With BIG, as with all community specific rules, I predict that communities will form around rulesets. I can't see any way that any rule can [morally] change except by unanimous agreement by all members of the community.

How to deal with that lone holdout in a community of 10 000 people? Buy him out of the community and then change the rule. Voting is bogus wrt rules. Voting is for shareholders voting their share of a company, on a company decision.

Because it is not moral to change a rule except unanimously, the percentage can't just creep up. The communism of the community can't grow in extent unless everyone agrees to that. It could grow if people ignore the requirements of morality, sure, but it is our place [as FDR-informed/improved philosophers] to remind people what is and what is not moral (thank you to those of you who are doing that).

 

Note this: 0.0001% contributions to BIG is definitely affordable [and completely pointless and wasteful of the overhead].

100% contribution to BIG is full-on communism and will fail (economically), except in a few cases [e.g.religious communities].

Somewhere between 0.0001% and 100% BIG there is a perfect number, which benefits me by ensuring I need not ponder how much to give to charity, and benefits me by having people around me take on the right level of risk to make me the most and best goodies at the best possible prices.

 

Term: stipend - a term I am using for the grant every member receives.

Term: BIG - Basic Income Grant (it is not some kind of guarantee that kicks in only if employment fails, each member is granted it even if employed, even if super-wealthy).

[J215]

I am sorry, but I still don't understand. What does "the disincentive effect of means-based social security" mean, and how is it a problem?

As for a government program that would effect every single member of the population being a solution to the problem of overhead... I am pretty sure that is not logically consistent. Government IS a giant overhead, and one without consent at that.

The more reaching the program the higher the cost. For something to be ran by the state that effects the bank accounts of the entire population... That would be the largest kind of overhead, yet somehow would solve the problem of overheads? That is extraordinary and reality bending, how would it accomplish this?

The main thing for me is I still don't know what this is slated to solve, I am sorry to sound dense but I didn't understand your explanation. (other than you claiming that it would get rid of the cost of overhead while simultaneously creating a government program that would need staffing, tracking, oversight, leadership, and large amounts of information from the population in the area of bank accounts, identity verification, etc.)

[Des]

I am sorry, but I still don't understand. What does "the disincentive effect of means-based social security" mean, and how is it a problem?

 

As for a government program that would effect every single member of the population being a solution to the problem of overhead... I am pretty sure that is not logically consistent. Government IS a giant overhead, and one without consent at that.

 

The more reaching the program the higher the cost. For something to be ran by the state that effects the bank accounts of the entire population... That would be the largest kind of overhead, yet somehow would solve the problem of overheads? That is extraordinary and reality bending, how would it accomplish this?

 

The main thing for me is I still don't know what this is slated to solve, I am sorry to sound dense but I didn't understand your explanation. (other than you claiming that it would get rid of the cost of overhead while simultaneously creating a government program that would need staffing, tracking, oversight, leadership, and large amounts of information from the population in the area of bank accounts, identity verification, etc.)

My mild irritation with how you grasp what I explain, is something I should mention. I am not blaming you, please don't get me wrong. I understand I have typed a lot, and actually I am smiling, as usual, as I type this  , just like in my profile pic. So, given that I have typed much, it is easy to miss the parts where I have said essentially: without government, by voluntary contract.

 

I did explain this before, and I am happy to explain it again, perhaps I can do a better take on it anyway:

 

A bunch of people (1000, 5000, 10 000) have similar values (in this case it includes a specific value for a specific level of "sharing").

 

They relocate to be physical neighbours (buy up a small town or a suburb or some farms).

 

They all sign up to one contract (with each other, not with some government).

 

In the contract, they firstly agree what morality is, and agree to abstain from immoral action towards other members of the contractual society.

 

Additionally, they agree to other community standards (in this case, we have the specific standard for "sharing"). Now if you don't agree to this standard for "sharing", you would not join this community.

 

I don't get where you are coming from with the idea of bending reality. The people we are discussing here, are people who would want bank accounts anyway. How is everybody doing one monthly transfer out and getting one monthly transfer in, a big overhead?

[J215]

I honestly don't mean to irritate you with my questions, and it does make more sense to me now. As long as I have the ability to decline it and not be attacked then sure... Do whatever you and your group want to do.

I still don't understand why anyone would organize in this way  though (no idea what problem this is suppose to fix), but it is easy enough to say no to something voluntary that involves the taking of your money without an understanding of what it is suppose to be in exchange for.

To answer your question - A tracked and staffed position overseeing this would be a cost to the community (overhead). Letting people act on their own beliefs and interests in regards to charity without a system like this would save the community the cost of compensating people for running, tracking, and enforcing the fund transfers (no overhead).

I understand now that it is not a government ran program and purely consensual but how would it save the cost of running, overseeing, and enforcing this system? It might be easier for me to grasp and get behind if I knew what you were trying to solve with this way of organizing. (and again I am not trying to irritate you, I genuinely don't understand the need for this).

[Des]

I honestly don't mean to irritate you with my questions, and it does make more sense to me now. As long as I have the ability to decline it and not be attacked then sure... Do whatever you and your group want to do.

 

I still don't understand why anyone would organize in this way  though (no idea what problem this is suppose to fix), but it is easy enough to say no to something voluntary that involves the taking of your money without an understanding of what it is suppose to be in exchange for.

To answer your question - A tracked and staffed position overseeing this would be a cost to the community (overhead). Letting people act on their own beliefs and interests in regards to charity without a system like this would save the community the cost of compensating people for running, tracking, and enforcing the fund transfers (no overhead).

 

I understand now that it is not a government ran program and purely consensual but how would it save the cost of running, overseeing, and enforcing this system? It might be easier for me to grasp and get behind if I knew what you were trying to solve with this way of organizing. (and again I am not trying to irritate you, I genuinely don't understand the need for this).

There are currently charity organisations which go identify needs and distribute donations (Assessing needs is a process which takes human effort), and this assessment cost is the overhead which comes with charity. In addition, charities move goods around, and decide on behalf of their recipients, which items or services to provide. I do comprehend that an important reason for this, is that donors (in general) don't want to give addictive substances to addicts.

 

So, the efficiency of re-distributing a survival stipend to everyone, is in the reduction of need for assessment. There would be fewer people asking for charity, because most people who have just ordinary dietary needs and medical needs and need for shelter, can meet those needs from the stipend. If they want more, they can trade their labour to buy something more. It would be people who have extraordinary medical needs, without the capacity to earn and pay accordingly, who might then still ask for charity to meet their medical bills.  So, only extreme cases require charity, and if (as I estimate will happen) the people who would be the more typical case for charity (those who make planning errors and can't immediately correct those errors without incurring new costs, and those who have disabilities but are without high medical costs).

 

You are correct that there is a cost to auditing the contractual system of contributing, and a cost for lawsuits where members do not keep their word. Yes, charity does not have the cost of auditing to see who has or has not paid in, but on the expenditure side, there is (typically) an auditing cost, so that donors can check how their money is spent. This expenditure-side auditing is not needed with the BIG system. No one needs to interfere with (or audit) how the receiver of stipend spends the stipend received.

 

To revisit my remark above on planning errors: I was with a charity organisation when they distributed food to people who were relocating their shacks from flooded ground to higher ground. They can't do casual labour for a few days while rebuilding, so the food substitutes for the income shortfall.

 

Oh, and on the overhead cost, we were in the settlement of shacks accompanied by about 20 armed policemen who were only there to protect the charity workers (a charity hand-out is a high-visibility target for the criminals in a shack settlement).

 

I am considering people who are not categorically disabled, but suffer from planning ability problems to the point where siting a shack below the floodline seems like an okay plan. These people have value, and I want them to survive. I just don't see that you and I can buy enough from them (to offer them survival wage) in a world of the future where technology converts energy and matter into whatever I need, when I speak a few commands or press a few buttons (and my bank account gets an automatic debit). What happens when I/we no longer need anything packed, unpacked, delivered, cooked or cleaned by the people who do those jobs now (because nanotechnology will replace all that)?

 

My answer is: BIG happens (by voluntary contract).

[LovePrevails]

I think this article does a good job of pointing out exactly what BIG advocates are missing:

http://scottishlibertarians.com/basicincome/

[Des]

There is already a BIG in the US, it's called foodstamps. When you work at Walmart or McDonalds and you don't make enough money you are eligible for foodstamps and other programs. Eliminating all subsidies for workers and putting them into one income would reduce overhead and create an incentive for companies to create better paying jobs above the BIG (to play government's advocate for a second). Mc Jobs are only possible because of state intervention. 

 

I will just repeat that I am against having a government, and against (naturally) having a government BIG program, as much as having any other government program.

 

I want to clarify that the BIG idea is to do away with measurement of income, do nearly zero administration, and give to billionaire and pauper the same stipend. The pauper survives off it, and the billionaire leaves it lying as loose change somewhere in one of his cars.

 

I have typed in earlier posts in this thread, how and why a stateless society could adopt the BIG idea.

 

No, foodstamps do not represent the innovative idea inside the BIG. The G should be for grant, not guarantee. To fulfill a guarantee, you do the work of determining whether or not the product failed. For a grant, you don't do that, there is no means testing.